Lincoln’s 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | August 19, 2004 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[nolu chan]

[cr #1281 to GOPcap] In the Prize Cases we find these easily understood statements: "The laws of war, as established among nations, have their foundation in reason, and all tend to mitigate the cruelties and misery produced by the scourge of war. Hence the parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars.

This is even more easily understood.

150. Civil war is war between two or more portions of a country or state, each contending for the mastery of the whole, and each claiming to be the legitimate government. The term is also sometimes applied to war of rebellion, when the rebellious provinces or portions of the state are contiguous to those containing the seat of government.

-- War Department General Order 100, "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field."

The "belligerent" class referred to in The Prize Cases was invented by Justice Grier and made its initial appearance in The Prize Cases.

When Lincoln proclaimed the BLOCKADE, Britain declared NEUTRALITY, which in international law pertained to two nations at war. Other nations of Europe followed. A BLOCKADE is an act of war. A war must have two parties. What was going on did not meet the definition of a "Civil War." Justice Grier invented a new party to warfare, the "belligerent" that is not a nation.

History now nods, winks, and looks the other way at the declarations of NEUTRALITY.

[Gianni]

[GOPcap] "I'm talking about yankee-sanctioned war criminals ... who patrolled behind the union lines and basically raped whatever they could out of the southern people who were unfortunate enough to live there as war spoils and to pass the boredom."

[El Capitan] If the purpose of the destruction of the Confederate infrastructure was to sooner end the war and save Union lives, it was permissible and justified.

Uff da.

It did occur to me after your post lamenting Lincoln's inability to carry out ideological cleansing that nolu chan and I were both born North of the Mason-Dixon; I suppose that means you were really daydreaming about Russian-style butchery.

You make me want to puke.

[Non-Sequitur]

"Outside of Eastern Tennessee and the Wheeling region of Virginia (which wasn't really southern to begin with - it's north of the mason dixon line) the number of union troops from the south is virtually non-existant."

According to "Battles And leaders of the Civil War: Vol.4", page 767, the number of southerners serving in the Union Army was more than 'nonexistent'. There were 2576 from Alabama, almost 8300 from Arkansas, almost 6,000 from Louisiana, 2000 from Texas. And that does not count the more than 150,000 men from Kentucky and Missouri, two ostensibly confederate states. And these are not all black soldiers, either. A considerable number were white troops. Here is a Link to a site that details all the Union regiments during the war, including those from southern states.

[4CJ]

A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court trumps Wheaton.

Bump. Amzing what gets trotted out, Wheaton, Farber, Fehrenbacher, etc. I'm waiting to see if he trots out Don King or his grandmother. He's already made it perfectly clear that Lincoln shold have lined up ALL Southerners - men, women and children - on the sides of ditches and slaughtered them. Either that, or run them through the "showers". Amazing mentality - I wonder where I've seen it's ilk before?

[4CJ]

They either applied, meaning Lincoln violated them, or they did not, meaning Lincoln's claim that they applied over the south was false. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Bump. A unanimous court agreed. The Constitution does not have on 'on/off' switch, to be turned off by any two bit dictator at will.

[4CJ]

stainless: intended for you, I'm sure. Slip of the clicker.

LOL! Yep, you must have thought you weren't in Kansas Iowa anymore.

I am glad stainless and family made it through safely.

[4CJ]

By their insurrection, the southern rebels forsook their claim to United States citizenship.

Ass backwards. The Confederates renounced their allegiance to the 'mystical Union' [*music in the background*] by exercising their God given right to self government.

[4CJ]

Those who are in armed insurrection and rebellion, who have organized a government (of sorts) in opposition to the constitutional government of the country, have no claim to protection or rights afforded to them under that document. They were the equivalent to enemy aliens, and were covered under the laws of war as they were then known and understood.

A later decision, unanimously decided by the Supreme Court, holds that your argument is so much bovine scatology.

[4CJ]

By the way, Lincoln was elected to his Constitutional term both times. One who "reigned" would not have stood for re-election. Your characterization is laughable.

Nothing like sending the military to 'guard' the pooling booths, to prevent those disloyal copperheads from voting for his competitors.

[4CJ]

The ACW was a cleansing process, in one sense.

Wow, you don't give up do ya? There was a German dictator that shared your views. And one in the USSR and one just captured in Iraq. You should be proud. </sarcasm>

[4CJ]

Lincoln cleansed away the stain of human servitude.

Lincoln passed the 14th Amendment? He certainly didn't fight a war to free the first slave! He wanted to REWARD them with a free, all expense paid trip to Panama, Mexico, anywhere but within the United states Of America.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln passed the 14th Amendment?

I think you mean the 13th Amendment.

[lentulusgracchus]

Not at all! The South was very much part of the Union. The secessionists were not.

You'd been corrected on this argument two or three times even before you posted it to me. Don't dish that swill as fresh.

Either the secessionists were out of the Union, and were foreign nationals -- and you have virtually conceded that argument -- or they were not. You can't have it both ways and just do what you want.

Oh, but wait -- that is the point, isn't it, El Supremo?

[4CJ]

That too ;o)

[lentulusgracchus]

But wait...along comes something like the Merrick incident that shows Lincoln did indeed rule oppressively. No worries! Just slander and defame the judge, post unreasonable doubts and demands against the facts of the case, dismiss the entire matter out of hand, and crap in a bowl and call it ice cream. Praise be, as Saint Abe's reputation is thus restored!

Concurring bump. Worth repeating.

Except that you forgot to mention "raising the bar" and "deliberately misquoting court cases and then sticking labels on them that say 'THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT....'"

Furthermore, I think it would have to be a very short list of personalities whose reputations were ever restored by the serving up of a steaming pile.

[lentulusgracchus]

[GOPcapitalist] Trying to insert false distinctions of whether that right, when exercised, is "legal" amounts to nothing more than obfuscation of the real issue.

Concurring thud-bump. <crockery bounces>

That's the consistently employed device in all the court cases cited here that pretend to put secession and the secessionists on trial, in order to find their acts "illegal" for some immediate purpose of the Government.

But Job One is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the competence of the powers exercised, the legality of their form of exercise, and the consequent legality of secession and must flow from it like a river, which is the confession of the legitimacy of the Confederacy.

[lentulusgracchus]

Erratum (again -- I'm getting bad at this):

consequent legality of secession and that which must flow.....

Solly. <8^\

[4CJ]

Erratum (again -- I'm getting bad at this):

Me too, but don't worry, they've already admitted they don't read them. ;o)

[stand watie]

how is he/she "spanking" me?? by posting HATEFILLED, IGNORANT, SELF-RIGHTEOUS LIES??? i think NOT.

heyworth is acting in the BEST INTEREST of dixie. since 'ole WP has been banned (i assume permanently????), heyworth is taking the lead in making the damnyankees & their hatefilled cause against dixie look WORSE. that is a GOOD THING;he's/she's one of the BEST players on OUR team!

heyworth is NO great mind, seems to be UNeducated & his/her IGNORANCE of the most basic facts about 19th century America & the WBTS is helpful in making him/her & the unionist loonies on FR look RIDICULIOUS. that too is a GOOD THING. i hope he/she sticks around, is not banned & continues his assault on me & the TRUE CAUSE!

i would think you & N-S, as the two unionists with a brain, otoh, would be trying to muzzle him/her.

in response to your other comment about the "crimes against humanity", since when does "enforcement of the law" include:

MASS RAPES,

the TORTURE & COLDBLOODED MURDER of TENS of THOUSANDS of CIVILIAN WOMEN & CHILDREN,

organized ARMED ROBBERY,

the wholesale LOOTING of civilian property,

the intentional BURNING/LOOTING of CHURCHES & SYNAGOGUES for personal profit &

TORTURING & MURDERING HELPLESS POWs by the TENS of THOUSANDS (at least 15,000 at just ONE of the damnyankee death camps)????

i wonder if you think the resistance groups that fought the NAZI regime were ILL-advised AND if you think their war against the NAZI invaders was UNLAWFUL???? inquiring minds want to know.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

WELL SAID!

free dixie,sw